Short-circuit cameras

Published: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 08:00 AM.

More than three years after the Legislature passed a law allowing Florida cities to install red-light cameras at intersections to identify and punish traffic violations, opponents have repeatedly failed to repeal the measure.

Now they are trying a different route to undermine the devices by making them less profitable for cities. That’s a good way to separate those communities that believe the cameras truly improve road safety from those that view them merely as sources of revenue.

Last week the House Transportation and Highway Safety Subcommittee voted 10-3 to approve a bill that would prohibit cities and counties from installing new red-light cameras after July 1 and would limit the revenue local governments could raise from them.

“We are not removing the cameras that are already there,” said Rep. Frank Artiles, R-Miami. “What we’re saying is that the local governments are not going to profiteer from it ... If it’s about safety, make it about safety.”

If it’s truly about safety, then there shouldn’t be a limit on how many cameras communities can install. If they have reduced accidents at certain intersections, then why not expand their usage to other roads (leaving aside legal arguments about whether the cameras themselves violate certain rights)?

The problem is, nobody’s sure just how effective the cameras are in improving safety.

Studies of red-light cameras in Florida and elsewhere around the country have produced mixed results on their effectiveness, with several showing that other methods of traffic control, such as longer yellow lights, are better at reducing collisions.

More than three years after the Legislature passed a law allowing Florida cities to install red-light cameras at intersections to identify and punish traffic violations, opponents have repeatedly failed to repeal the measure.

Now they are trying a different route to undermine the devices by making them less profitable for cities. That’s a good way to separate those communities that believe the cameras truly improve road safety from those that view them merely as sources of revenue.

Last week the House Transportation and Highway Safety Subcommittee voted 10-3 to approve a bill that would prohibit cities and counties from installing new red-light cameras after July 1 and would limit the revenue local governments could raise from them.

“We are not removing the cameras that are already there,” said Rep. Frank Artiles, R-Miami. “What we’re saying is that the local governments are not going to profiteer from it ... If it’s about safety, make it about safety.”

If it’s truly about safety, then there shouldn’t be a limit on how many cameras communities can install. If they have reduced accidents at certain intersections, then why not expand their usage to other roads (leaving aside legal arguments about whether the cameras themselves violate certain rights)?

The problem is, nobody’s sure just how effective the cameras are in improving safety.

Studies of red-light cameras in Florida and elsewhere around the country have produced mixed results on their effectiveness, with several showing that other methods of traffic control, such as longer yellow lights, are better at reducing collisions.

In the Sunshine State, however, many of the 77 cities and counties that have installed the cameras have failed to provide the data necessary to determine if the devices are working as intended.

Tampa TV station WTSP reported in November that although the law mandates that any city or county that issues the automated tickets must submit annual “statistical data and information” requested by the Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, nearly half failed to answer the DHSMV’s three questions on crash data:

● Have the number of overall crashes gone up or down since camera installation?

● Have the number of side-impact crashes gone up or down since installation?

● Have the number of rear-impact crashes gone up or down since installation?

The uncertainty over red-light camera effectiveness has raised suspicions that local governments embrace them so enthusiastically because they can become cash cows. Last year the devices generated more than $100 million in fines. The camera vendors get a share of that, as does the state, but that still leaves governments with a healthy new revenue stream in a sluggish economy — especially if the cameras don’t actually reduce red-light violations.

The bill would significantly decrease that incentive by lowering the fines from the current $158 per violation to $83. Would communities be so eager to embrace the cameras if they didn’t raise as much cash for local coffers?

If it’s all about safety, then every city and county that employs red-light cameras (and thankfully, none in this area do) should be sharing their performance data as required by law. Nor should they balk at fines that create just enough revenue to pay for the installation and upkeep of the devices, and nothing more.